Collaborators on Canons project
•Emmett P. Fiske: Organizational
Effectiveness Specialist
•Kay E. Haaland: Regional Faculty --
Leadership & Community Development
•Robert H. McDaniel : Program Leader
– Community Resource Development
•Philip R. Wandschneider :
Professor & Scientist
Ronald C. Faas
Extension Economist Emeritus
1

 Overview
 Case Example – Washington State University
 Impacts on Faculty
 Faculty Take the Initiative
 The Product
 Implications for Other Land Grant Universities
2

 Accepting the challenge of public policy education can strengthen support for Cooperative Extension as the most relevant educational institution in contemporary society
(1993, Boyle and Mulcahy)
 By 1999, only nine land-grant institutions had implemented
PIE policies.
 Without clear guidelines, faculty and staff involved in controversial public issues have faced risks with little or no support or defense.
3

 To help land-grant university administrators, colleagues, and the public understand the roles of researchers, educators, facilitators and mediators in controversial public policy issues.
 To clarify roles and responsibilities of:


 administrators researchers and educators the public
 To serve as the basis for addressing any complaints.
4

Faculty Experiences in Resource Conflicts
 Conducting public policy research and education programs to address conflicts over competing resource use
 Consequences: Stakeholder anger and administrative response
5

Washington State University (WSU)
 During the past decade, WSU faculty came under fire for engaging in public policy education (especially over competing resource use)
 Vitriolic communications from stakeholder groups to WSU administration
 WSU faculty caught between stakeholder anger and administrative response
 No administrative policies/procedures yet in place to address external criticism
6

7

Personal Aspects
 Anger
 Integrity impugned
 Betrayal
Morale Aspects
 Undermined workplace morale
 Who defends WSU faculty and staff when push comes to shove?
8

 These experiences stimulated a group of WSU faculty to discuss how to safeguard faculty and institutional integrity in the midst of stakeholder dissatisfaction.
 The result was development of the “Canons of Practice” document.
9

10

 “Bottoms-up” approach by WSU faculty
 Extensive review of best practices, principles, and guidelines available both within the land-grant system and from professional organizations involved in public policy research and education
 Draft document then underwent several years of internal review and multiple revisions
 Submission to College administration for consideration
 Administrators requested university legal counsel review before considering it further
11

 Legal review and revision consumed more time (several years)
 Resulting document provides the necessary specificity to distinguish itself from existing university policies, while informing university researchers and educators, administrators, and the public about the appropriateness of public policy education and research within a land-grant university setting
 Policy was adopted by College administration on April 11, 2002
12

Educator Public, Stakeholders
Land Grant
Administrators
13

Public, Stakeholders
Land Grand
Administrators
When Should College Educators Become Involved?
 Are diverse and relevant stakeholders to be involved?
 Is it recognized that the role of researchers and educators is to inform, not decide?
 Have fair and equitable ground rules been developed and approved by the group?
 Are there clear procedures for review of any research components?
 Does the process encourage and facilitate a shared understanding of the dispute?
14

Guidelines to Govern the Conduct of College Educators/
Employees
The educator will:
 Advocate the principles of collaborative, inclusive decisionmaking.
 Gain the agreement of all participants to the ground rules.
 Avoid conflict of interest or appearance of conflict of interest.
The college will:
 Support the methods of science: the principle of objectivity and value neutrality; the principles of scientific methods and scholarly work.
 Support principle of academic freedom; unrestricted discourse, protection of tenure.
15

Educator
Public, Stakeholder
Administrative Response to Complaints
 Administrators will grant a full, open, and respectful audience to all sectors of the public.
 Administrators will publicly support the right and responsibility of researchers and educators to perform public policy research and education.
 Administrators will inform employees immediately about concerns or complaints.
16

Educator
Land Grant
Administrators
Citizen-participants should accept “ground rules” including these principles:
 People working together are capable of producing ideas of extraordinary value.
 Good faith and honesty are essential for effective, sustainable outcomes in public policy.
 Representation of all significant interests is vital.
 Mutually accepted ground rules are essential.
 College employees have a neutral and objective role.
17

18

19

 If only nine land-grant institutions have PIE policies…
 What safety nets are in place for educators and researchers whose states lack policies?
 What needed policy and public issues education or research is not getting done because faculty and staff have no clear guidelines or support for such engagement?
20

The Canons of Practice guidelines provide a model for review and a possible template for adaptation and adoption by other land-grant institutions.
 As land-grant institutions have a rich history of working with the public and their representatives in addressing controversial issues, the Canons of Practice was developed in the spirit of guiding faculty and staff interactions with members of the public when engaged in the conduct of public policy-related research and education activities.
21

continued
 The Canons document provides an effective mechanism through which to educate the public about the scientific method, the nature of academic and scholarly work, and the mission of the land-grant university.
 “Due process” for the employee is the standard administrative response when there is a concern or complaint.
22

 The anticipated improvement in communication and understanding between college employees and members of the public should engender closer collaboration, more effective working relationships, and stronger partnerships among parties involved in public policy research and education activities wherever such a policy is implemented.
www.cahe.wsu.edu/cop/ www.joe.org/joe/2004august/iw2.shtml
23

24